Monday, March 4, 2024

Maximum Maxwell – 55-Year Sentence For Grubby Groper Ghislaine Maxwell

Prosecutors rightly demand mucky madam sex offender Ghislaine Maxwell gets maximum 55 years in the clink and thus likely deservedly dies there; they also want the deviant liar to pay the maximum £615,000 fine and call out her spreading “horror stories” about her incarceration as “unfounded”

Boob groping grabber and money motivated sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell – whose claims of “extreme weight loss are not true” given her weight has gone from 146 pounds to 144.5 pounds since she entered the clink – wants a laughable sentence of just 4 years; those that brought her to justice want her sent down 55 years. Yesterday setting out the case as to why in a 55-page document, United States Attorney Damian Williams observed:


“Ghislaine Maxwell sexually exploited young girls for years. It is difficult to overstate the magnitude of her crimes and the harm she caused. Her crimes demand justice. The Government urges the Court to impose a sentence within the applicable Guidelines range of 360 to 660 months’ imprisonment.”


This morning on Twitter, Matthew Steeples shared a poll that asked: “Does mucky madam sex offender Ghislaine Maxwell deserve 4 years or 55 years?” The majority of respondents thus far are in favour of “chucking the book at her” rather than the 4 years her defence team are laughably seeking.

“As the Government has emphasized throughout this case, Jeffrey Epstein could not have committed these crimes without the defendant. The defendant, an adult woman, was able to provide a cover of respectability to Epstein that lulled the victims and their families into a false sense of security.”


“This case sends the important message that those who would conspire with sexual predators will be held responsible for their significant role in these crimes. Accordingly, a Guidelines sentence is necessary to afford deterrence.”


“The lenient sentence the defendant seeks would send the message that there is one system of laws for the rich and powerful, and another set for everyone else.”


“It would also send the message to victims that, even if they have the courage to report their abusers and undergo the excruciating experience of testifying in court, there will be no meaningful accountability.”


Going further of a wicked woman they described as playing an “instrumental role in the horrific sexual abuse of multiple young teenage girls” and someone who “left her victims permanently scarred with emotional and psychological injuries,” they add “Maxwell was an adult who made her own choices.” Of her attempts to blame others, Williams adds:


“If anything stands out from the defendant’s sentencing submission, it is her complete failure to address her offense conduct and her utter lack of remorse. Instead of showing even a hint of acceptance of responsibility, the defendant makes a desperate attempt to cast blame wherever else she can.”


“On that score, the defendant’s attempt to cast aspersions on the Government for prosecuting her, and her claim that she is being held responsible for Epstein’s crimes, are both absurd and offensive.”


“… She made the choice to sexually exploit numerous underage girls. She made the choice to conspire with Epstein for years, working as partners in crime and causing devastating harm to vulnerable victims.”


“She should be held accountable for her disturbing role in an extensive child exploitation scheme.”


“The Government agrees that the defendant should be sentenced for her own conduct: she committed terrible crimes that caused irreparable harm to vulnerable children. Her own criminal actions demand that she serve every day of a Guidelines sentence in prison.”


“Moreover, even now, at sentencing, the defendant has shown no acceptance of responsibility, and her submission fails to even mention, much less accept responsibility for, the harm she has caused her victims. Instead, her entire submission is an effort to cast herself as a victim: of her father, of Epstein, of the media, of prosecutors, of the Bureau of Prisons.”


“Although much of the defendant’s sentencing memorandum aims to cast aspersions on the Government, these claims are baseless. This Office did what it always does in any case: it followed the facts and law.”


“The investigation uncovered that the defendant committed terrible crimes, and that is what this case is about. The Court should see the defendant’s attack on the Government’s motives for exactly what it is: a desperate attempt to shift the blame for her own crimes and distract from the gravity of her offense conduct.”


“In short, the defendant has lied repeatedly about her crimes, exhibited an utter failure to accept responsibility, and demonstrated repeated disrespect for the law and the Court. The defendant’s history and characteristics weigh in favor of a Guidelines sentence.”


Turning to this the very likely mostly hidden assets of this very wealthy 60-year-old – whose evil conman father plundered and hid assets of about £450 million via locations believed to number the British Virgin Islands, the Channel Islands, Lichtenstein, Panama and Switzerland – Williams concluded “the defendant apparently decides when she wishes to disclose facts to the Court, and those facts shift when it serves the defendant’s interests.”


Going further, he added:


“The breakdown of the defendant’s finances provided then demonstrated that the defendant is a remarkably wealthy woman. That wealth appears to have primarily come from Epstein.”


“The primary source of funds reflected in that financial breakdown was the sale of the defendant’s Manhattan townhouse. Kate testified at trial that the defendant told Kate that Epstein obtained the New York townhouse for the defendant. Additionally, evidence at trial demonstrated that Epstein transferred a total of approximately $23 million (£18.9 million, €21.9 million or درهم84.5 million) to the defendant.”


“The defendant’s dishonesty surrounding her finances is an aggravating factor weighing in favor of an above-Guidelines fine in this case. The defendant’s assets range in 52 the multiple millions of dollars. A $750,000 (£615,000, €715,000 or درهم2.8million) fine will hardly impact her financial outlook, but it is the most the law will allow in this case. The Court should impose it without hesitation.”


“With respect to forfeiture, the Government is not seeking to forfeit any property because the Government has not identified specific property used in the offense conduct that the defendant herself owned.”


“Finally, because each of the identified victims has already received monetary compensation for the harms caused to them by the defendant’s criminal conduct, the Government does not seek restitution in this case. Restitution is not available where victims have received compensation for their losses from another source.”


“Each of the six victims identified at trial – Jane, Annie, Kate,Carolyn, Virginia, and Melissa – has received funds from the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund and/or civil settlements as compensation for the harms they suffered as a result of the defendant’s and Epstein’s crimes.”


“… That amount constitutes a mere drop in the bucket for a multi-millionaire like the defendant, but it nevertheless sends the message that a defendant who uses wealth to accomplish criminal activity will suffer financial losses in addition to the loss of liberty.”


“No amount of money can undo the harm that the defendant’s crimes have done, but given the defendant’s substantial means, the majority of which appears to have come from her co-conspirator, a hefty fine is certainly warranted in this case.”


“Money is a key theme underlying the criminal conduct in this case. The defendant’s access to wealth enabled her to present herself as a supposedly respectable member of society, who rubbed shoulders with royalty, presidents, and celebrities.”


“That same wealth dazzled the girls from struggling families who became the defendant and Epstein’s victims. That same wealth enabled the defendant and Epstein to hire a parade of staff to transport victims and maintain the fabulous properties where those victims were abused.”


“That same wealth motivated the defendant to make sure that Epstein’s repulsive desire for sexual contact with teenage girls was always met.”


“That wealth was the defendant’s reward.”


“The defendant has lived a life of extraordinary privilege, and she profited from her relationship with Epstein. It is only right that she should suffer some small financial penalty for the incalculable harm she has caused.”


Of Jeffrey Epstein’s co-collaborator and one-time lover’s moaning about jail conditions, Williams observed:


“At bottom, the defendant’s complaints about jail seem to come down to the vast gulf between the conditions of her confinement and the defendant’s lived experience up until her arrest and detention on July 2, 2020.”


“Until July 2020, the defendant spent her entire life living in extraordinary luxury. Her childhood and adolescence were filled with wealth and privilege. That access to wealth continued into adulthood when the defendant found a benefactor in Epstein, who provided her with millions of dollars and invited her to share in his luxurious lifestyle of mansions, house staff, private chefs, and private planes.”


“After leaving that relationship, the defendant remained exceptionally wealthy, residing in palatial estates and owning multiple homes. It is no wonder, then, that she found jail jarring. Going from being waited on hand and foot to incarceration is undoubtedly a shocking and unpleasant experience.”


“The massive difference between the defendant’s prior life and the life of an inmate may feel extreme to the defendant, but when compared to the experiences of other pretrial detainees in this District, her experience is by no means so shocking as to merit a downward variance.”


“If anything, the defendant’s privilege remained intact while at the MDC, as demonstrated by the exceptional benefits she received. No other inmate received the kind of access to discovery and to counsel that the defendant did. The defendant had her own shower, her own television, her own desktop computer, her own laptop, and her own space to spend the day outside of her cell.”


“The defendant was able to get any concerns, no matter how small, immediately brought to the attention of MDC legal counsel through her attorneys. Comparing that treatment to SAMS is out of touch with reality.”


“In many respects, the defendant’s conditions of confinement were preferential and more beneficial than those experienced by other inmates… At bottom, the defendant does not like jail.”


“… Finally, it bears emphasizing that the defendant has told blatant lies about her conditions of confinement. She repeatedly claims to have suffered significant hair loss, but anyone who has seen the defendant in court can easily see that is not true.”


“She repeatedly claims to have lost an extreme amount of weight, but, as noted above, BOP medical records make clear that she has not. The defendant is perfectly healthy, with a full head of hair.”


Mr Williams is spot on and given that Ghislaine Maxwell remains remorseless for her many crimes, has been shown to be a deviant liar and has thus far refused to name the names of her co-collaborators and those she sex trafficked to, it is time for only one thing. On 28th June, it is time for Judge Alison J. Nathan to chuck the book at this truly rotten piece of toerag.


Elsewhere this morning, the shared an image they declared “never-before-seen” image of the daughter of the world’s worst pension plunderer with her now estranged husband Scott Borgerson at a Christmas party at a nursing home in December 2017. The pair married on Christmas Day a year earlier – the very day of Ghislaine Maxwell’s 55th birthday.
Scott Borgerson and Kris McGinn Straub
Mr Borgerson ditched his wife in what the termed a “heated phone call whilst she was in solitary confinement” and has moved on with a yoga enthusiast with “an ass that could crack open a walnut” named Kris McGinn Straub.
Victim statements
The United States Attorney’s Office Southern District of New York issued a statement on Tuesday 21st June 2022 calling on victims wishing to make a statement at Ghislaine Maxwell to contact them. In it they incorrectly stated the date of sentencing as the 29th June rather than the 28th June.

The Maxwell-Borgerson Assets

Of the lies Ghislaine Maxwell told about her assets, prosecutors remark: “After getting caught in her lie to Pretrial Services that her only asset was her London townhouse, the defendant provided a very different picture when seeking bail in December 2020. The breakdown of the defendant’s finances provided then demonstrated that the defendant is a remarkably wealthy woman.”


Amongst the assets of the couple are:


Manchester-by-the-Sea residence – The house Borgerson bought with Maxwell on 30th June 2016 for £1.802 million ($2.450 million, €2.164 million or درهم8.998 million) in Manchester-by-the-Sea, Massachusetts was placed for sale in February 2022 for a far more punchy £5.368 million ($7.295 million, €6.443 million or درهم26.791 million). Whether it has sold is unknown and how much of the proceeds from such she will receive has also yet to be disclosed.
New Hampshire residence – The pair purchased Tuckedaway, 338 East Washington Road, Bradford, New Hampshire, NH 03221 for £787,953 ($1,070,750, €945,752 or درهم3.93 million) on 13th December 2019 via Jennifer Johnson and Margaret Weathers of Four Seasons Sotheby’s International Realty. The house had been listed at a price of £879,000 ($1.195 million, €1.055 million or درهم4.389 million) in March that year and sold previously for £773,000 ($1.050 million, €927,000 million or درهم3.856 million) on 15th December 2017. Its ownership is currently unknown, but likely remains in the joint possession of Mr and Mrs Borgerson.
London residence – Ghislaine Maxwell paid £290,000 ($396,000, €347,000 or درهم5 million) for a three-storey leasehold mews house on 22nd January 1997. 44 Kinnerton Street, Belgravia, London, SW1X 8ES is situated at the heart of the Duke of Westminster’s Grosvenor Estate and she sold it for £1.75 million ($2.39 million, €2.09 million or درهم79 million) on 19th April 2021.
Matthew Steeples
Matthew Steeples
A graduate of the London School of Economics, Matthew Steeples is a writer and marketing consultant. He conceived The Steeple Times as a media arena to fill the void between the Mail Online, The Huffington Post and such organs as the New York Social Diary in 2012.


  1. She sure has had some amazing real estate but none can compare to her new property and this time she can rest well knowing she earned it . GM worked very hard for this new place . Great article as always Mr. Steeple

  2. Throw away the key sounds great, or rather it will get a bit rusty waiting to be used again. She will be having fun.

  3. Here comes Ian Maxwell again. Writing in the Telegraph that the USA is responsible for Ghislaines personality. America is mentally ill right now, but thats not why Ghislaine is in jail. Im looking forward to her being stashed away and Ian Maxwell to hopefully bogging off. He is abusing logic and himself with his endless blaming. I cant wait for him to collapse his war pavilion and go scrounge more weird money from weird businesses. Ok


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

£1 per week Supports The Steeple Times

Help journalism to remain honest & independent. You can make a difference to the world today.


Subscribe For DAILY NEWS

Please subscribe, like and share this unique site, it helps us tremendously. The Steeple Times in return will send you an email at noon each and everyday, that we sincerely hope you will enjoy & look forward to seeing in your inbox.


Trending Now

Most Popular Articles

Was Mucky Minx Meghan Markle A ‘Yacht Girl’ For ‘Randy Andy’?

As author Kirby Sommers suggests that the then Meghan Markle likely spent time with Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein before she met Prince Harry, we again highlight the mucky, murkiness and mendacious manner of this alleged “yacht girl.”


‘Politicalite’ suggest Phillip Schofield orchestrated his ‘mass coming out’ after a former ‘This Morning’ runner had gone to the press about a supposed relationship...

Meddling Meghan Markle Expose – Attwood, Hopkins & Steeples

Expose interview with Matthew Steeples by Shaun Attwood and Jennifer Hopkins about the former Meghan Markle watched over 73,000 times in 16 hours since it aired; Steeples condemns hapless Prince Harry and his meddling menace wife.

Justice for James Scurlock

Power of social media proven after senseless killing of James Scurlock in Omaha, Nebraska allegedly by a controversial bar owner named Jake Gardner who has been photographed with Donald Trump.
[td_block_6 custom_title="Most Liked..." sort="popular7"]